Abolish the House of Lords?

[perrykneeham]

"Labour would abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a "new, reformed upper chamber", the party has confirmed to the BBC.

Sir Keir Starmer told Labour peers that he wanted to strip politicians of the power to appoint people to the chamber in the first term of a Labour government.

He said that Tory leaders have handed peerages to "lackeys and donors"."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63692981

Apart from that laughable last paragraph, I have to say that I think the HoL has had its day. That being said:

a) I think we're all suffering from a deep sense of disappointment with the quality of our politicians and;
b) the chances are that the replacement will be even worse and stuffed with lackeys and diversity hires.

On balance, Kier Starmer is an empty vessel.

[mids]

Labour ruined it. It worked quite well before Blair stuffed it with cronies. Fine, it wasn't very democratic but it still worked.

[perrykneeham]

"He said that Tory leaders have handed peerages to "lackeys and donors"."

Brilliant. Absolute gold.

[mids]

I see Tom Watson has been given a peerage by Starmer. Presumably for his service in accusing innocent Tories of being nonces.

[whiterum]

If only the Tories could keep a PM in power for more than five minutes, we would actually have a proper party, a one which doesn't play musical chairs.

[flatandy]

Nov 20, 2022 11:46:30 GMT perrykneeham said:

"He said that Tory leaders have handed peerages to "lackeys and donors"."

Brilliant. Absolute gold.

He’s right. He’s just missing the other half.

The HoL is sh*t. But I don’t know if replacing it with a different upper chamber makes any sense.

[mids]

Nov 20, 2022 12:12:58 GMT whiterum said:

If only the Tories could keep a PM in power for more than five minutes, we would actually have a proper party, a one which doesn't play musical chairs.

Who the hell are you?

[mids]

I would have thought that an elected upper chamber would just reflect the political make up of the commons, which would be pointless.

[ootlg]

Oh, keep the HofL, but make them clock in and out and sack any that fall asleep. And on minimum wage too.

[voice]

Having an unelected chamber is anti democratic, I mean if you think having it stuffed with appointees from which ever party is in power means it somehow doesn't reflect the Commons, you need your bumps feeling.

Also why do we need a load of bishops sitting there, makes no sence.

Have an elected body, off set from the Commons vote, possibly longer terms. It would be another step towards being a true democracy

[flatandy]

That's the problem, isn't it.

A second elected chamber makes no sense. Particularly if it has fewer powers you'd have to ask why those voters' have less meaningful input than the first chamber's voters.

An appointed second chamber is anti-democratic nonsense. Even one where politicians have no say and it's de facto grandeur like, say, nobel prize winners and law lords and union leaders and bishops and so on who get the gig directly through their abilities rather than baksheesh to Boris.

You could possibly have the commons elected directly by PR and a second chamber of constituency MPs with less power, perhaps.

[perrykneeham]

Are we all still convinced by democracy? I'm not sure we know how to make it run properly.

[voice]

Yes, it's still better than anything else put there, even though it's not perfect. I know it a narrative on the right these days that what might be needed is a benevolent (sic) dictator to sort things out, but obviously only a right wing one right. It's bollox mind.

[mids]

So we're agreed then. Labour must never ever be allowed anywhere near power.

[flatandy]

Like voice says, democracy is sh*t. But everything else anyone’s tried has been worse.

[ootlg]

Democracy can't work within the current system, when false information's easily promulgated over the social media and a good percentage of the population's poorly educated and/or gullible.

But... it's still democracy, n'est ce pas?

[perrykneeham]

I think the struggle with democracy is that us is being so comprehensively subverted, both at a tactical level and at a strategic level.

Tactically,the rules have become so arcane that it they have become largely meaningless. See checks and balance in the US system. Similarly, "democratically" elected representatives are being allowed to decide on issues which would appear to be outside their brief, in supranational organisations.

This is facilitated by the strategic issues of poor electorate engagement, disenfranchisement and the piss-poor comprehension skills of the man of the Clapham omnibus.

[ootlg]

Wot?

[ootlg]

But seriously... As you appear to be suggesting, FPTP is the problem. Proportional Rep similar to the French system cuts out the finality of the vote, allowing more dissention and leeway in parliament. FPTP is an insidious form of dictatorship.

[perrykneeham]

People are too ill-informed, disengaged and/or thick to vote sensibly.

Trump.